Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

General discussion area and chat

Moderators: Indalecio, satrow

Forum rules
This General Discussions forum is an open chat area, so you can talk about almost any subject. Please keep things civil, though!

Please do try to somewhat stick to the relevance of this forum, which focuses on everything around the Pale Moon project and its user community. "Totally random" subjects don't really belong here, even in the general discussion area.
RJARRRPCGP
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:48 pm
Location: USA (Bellows Falls, Vermont)

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby RJARRRPCGP » Thu May 18, 2017 11:05 pm

LAMBDA471 wrote:

And to think around 2007-8 Firefox used to be my favorite browser and it was actually awesome back then....


I had a tendency to dislike Bon Echo. (2x) Bon Echo seemed to hang with the "Waiting for X" message very often! IIRC, more often than other major versions... Bon Echo also introduced the Firefox.exe-becomes-a-zombie-on-close bug...

PhilK
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:30 am

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby PhilK » Thu May 18, 2017 11:52 pm

JustOff wrote:Mozilla have decided to ruin Firefox for Android at the same time as desktop version:

Jorge Villalobos wrote:After looking into the most critical add-ons for mobile and the implementation plan for WebExtensions, we have decided it’s best to have desktop and mobile share the same timeline. This means that mobile will be WebExtensions-only at the same time as desktop Firefox, in version 57.

Via Mozilla Add-ons Blog.



Based on my assumption that a significant number of my FFA extensions are probably not web-extensions, that is a very unfortunate announcement. Because I cannot find a reasonably trustworthy alternative that also supports a broad spectrum of quality extensions that provide features I want. Ugh.

User avatar
FranklinDM
Add-ons Team
Add-ons Team
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:40 am
Location: Manila, Philippines
Contact:

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby FranklinDM » Fri May 19, 2017 1:14 am

JustOff wrote:Mozilla have decided to ruin Firefox for Android at the same time as desktop version:

I do hope PM4A will have a comeback someday.
Image

User avatar
half-moon
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 12:30 pm
Location: USA

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby half-moon » Fri May 19, 2017 1:55 am

FranklinDM wrote:
JustOff wrote:Mozilla have decided to ruin Firefox for Android at the same time as desktop version:

I do hope PM4A will have a comeback someday.


In order for that to happen, there would need to be more developers.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 19679
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: 58.5°N 15.5°E
Contact:

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Moonchild » Fri May 19, 2017 11:08 am

half-moon wrote:In order for that to happen, there would need to be more developers.


Probably just one, who can dedicate him or herself to the Fennec part of Pale Moon. We simply don't have the required Android/Java expertise (or free time) in our team to be able to develop/release it.
Improving Mozilla code: You know you're on the right track with code changes when you spend the majority of your time deleting code.
Image

Pale as the Moon
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:51 pm

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Pale as the Moon » Fri May 26, 2017 10:25 am

"Chrome won". Former Mozilla CTO reveals that at the Mozilla headquarters employees are using Chrome as their main browser... Have a look at these:

https://andreasgal.com/2017/05/25/chrome-won/
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/commen ... dreas_gal/

User avatar
Sajadi
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:46 am

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Sajadi » Fri May 26, 2017 11:36 am

Pale as the Moon wrote:"Chrome won". Former Mozilla CTO reveals that at the Mozilla headquarters employees are using Chrome as their main browser... Have a look at these:

https://andreasgal.com/2017/05/25/chrome-won/
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/commen ... dreas_gal/


And then people are actually wondering why Mozilla is a bunch of Google fanboys :mrgreen:

Yes, it is a wise rule... Always honor, admire and follow the one who has the goal to exterminate you. Congratulations, pretty sure Mozilla is in the future one of the nominees for the Darwin Arward. And indeed, they have earned it! :clap:

Pale as the Moon
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:51 pm

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Pale as the Moon » Fri May 26, 2017 12:41 pm

Sajadi wrote:And then people are actually wondering why Mozilla is a bunch of Google fanboys :mrgreen:

Yes, it is a wise rule... Always honor, admire and follow the one who has the goal to exterminate you. Congratulations, pretty sure Mozilla is in the future one of the nominees for the Darwin Arward. And indeed, they have earned it! :clap:


The connection between Star Wars and Browser Wars:

Firefox = Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, Chrome = Palpatine/Darth Sidious, Pale Moon = Luke Skywalker

Firefox: What is thy bidding, my master?
Chrome: There is a great disturbance in the web.
Firefox: I have felt it.
Chrome: We have a new enemy. The young Pale Moon who destroyed Australis. I have no doubt this browser is the offspring of Firefox.
Firefox: How is that possible?
Chrome: Search your source code Firefox, you will know it to be true. He could destroy us.
Firefox: He is just a one-man project. Mozilla can no longer help him.
Chrome: The code is strong with him. Pale Moon must not become a competitor.
Firefox: If he could be turned, he could be a powerful ally.
Chrome: Yes... He would be a great asset. Can it be done?
Firefox: He will join us or die, master.

joe04
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:38 pm
Location: US

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby joe04 » Fri May 26, 2017 5:40 pm

Disaster Plans for Firefox XUL Sunset

https://gist.github.com/ssokolow/2fb8de ... 0284f5d73a


This guy's "disaster plans" may be of interest to some folks here. My own browser obsession is fine for the moment.

PhilK
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:30 am

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby PhilK » Fri May 26, 2017 7:49 pm

Pale as the Moon wrote:Firefox: He will join us or die, master.


Off-topic:
That was a lovely creation. If we had a "like" button here I'd have hit it 100 times. :clap:



Pale as the Moon wrote:"Chrome won". Former Mozilla CTO reveals that at the Mozilla headquarters employees are using Chrome as their main browser... Have a look at these:

https://andreasgal.com/2017/05/25/chrome-won/
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/commen ... dreas_gal/


While it's certainly true that Chrome is beating the rest soundly at the moment, I think Gal's characterization of the details seems biased and my guess is that he is mostly trying to use that blog post to promote his new company. (eg, exaggeration of desktop "irrelevance", no mention of MS Edge anywhere, exaggeration of both Chrome's [especially recent] trajectory as well as Firefox's "doom", etc.)

Various of those Reddit comments corroborate my own experience that the XULrunner/Gecko/etc platform still has some serious performance deficits compared to Blink/Chromium.

I got momentarily excited by the discussion of the possibility of an expansion of web extensions that would bring it close to feature parity with XUL extensions if coding to FF specifically, but according to another poster that's dead for the next few years at least. So I agree that jettisoning support for legacy extensions will likely end up being another significant hit to the FF userbase going forward.

User avatar
Moonraker
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:02 pm
Location: England.

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Moonraker » Sat May 27, 2017 12:33 pm

I dont like the chrome browser period.
If it were not for mozilla developers then i doubt chrome would exist.

Could anybody explain why there is this rise in chrome as i see nothing particularly exceptional about it.

Best wishes.
Linux Lite 2.8 64bit.
Pale moon 27.4.1

User avatar
Sajadi
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:46 am

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Sajadi » Sat May 27, 2017 12:53 pm

Moonraker wrote:I dont like the chrome browser period.
If it were not for mozilla developers then i doubt chrome would exist.

Could anybody explain why there is this rise in chrome as i see nothing particularly exceptional about it.

Best wishes.


It is simple, it is shiny, it goes out of people's way. That's what the mainstream user base wants today, that's the reason Chrome succeeds. That's the reason Opera, Mozilla are sacrificing all what they have. To be compatible with the mainstream user's need.

Any more questions? :ugeek:

Pale as the Moon
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:51 pm

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Pale as the Moon » Sat May 27, 2017 3:28 pm

Sajadi wrote:It is simple, it is shiny, it goes out of people's way. That's what the mainstream user base wants today, that's the reason Chrome succeeds. That's the reason Opera, Mozilla are sacrificing all what they have. To be compatible with the mainstream user's need.

Any more questions? :ugeek:

I have to slightly disagree, Sajadi. No major browser out there is hard to use by default at all. If you are content with the default settings of Firefox or Pale Moon, maybe just installing an adblocker, there really is nothing too complicated about them. Chrome's rise has its foundations in the practice of bundling it with other software, but also in very real performance advantages at the time. Firefox just felt slow in comparison to Chrome. This is what you are conveniently overlooking.

And concerning Opera: From a certain point forward they couldn't realistically keep up Presto any longer. Presto never had a big market share (more like 1%-2%), which is why it was mostly ignored by website admins, leading to a lot of breakage. So I don't mind them dropping Presto. Restoring the actual features Opera 12 had is where they failed, but this is corrected by Vivaldi as it stands now.

User avatar
Sajadi
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:46 am

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Sajadi » Sat May 27, 2017 3:36 pm

Pale as the Moon wrote:I have to slightly disagree, Sajadi.


Vivaldi is a non acceptable Chrome clone. Take a look to the users of today. The biggest part are simple users. Simple users refuse to use anything which has bloat. Basically, what people understand under customization and features have changed.

Customization, like themes or UI customization is seen today as bloat, social networking, chat and else is seen today as features and customization. And as browser developer you can only be successful if you deliver to the mainstream users or in Mozilla's and Opera's case, both got greedy and removed therefor the power user features.

Bundling does help a bit, but Chrome is successful because it IS delivering all that what simple users want. And it's main advantage is that it is FAST! Simple users do not use Pale Moon or Firefox or Opera. They want no check-boxes, no features they neither understand or want. They want it simple and bare-bone and speedy like hell. Mozilla and Opera could have had a good and long life with just delivering to power and advanced users, who want more than just plain and simple, stupid browsing. They just have decided to leave the niche sector and enter too the mainstream sector in the hope to be as successful as Chrome or beat them.

And here we have the problem which arises.. Why people should use Firefox or Opera with a new Chrome-styled concept when the real Chrome is available (or Chromium - if you want the Open Source factor) - Also, Vivaldi and Brave will only stay in the niche sector and only will have a very limited and small user base - because simple users are not going to use anything which has something bloated.

This is no magic. It is as simple as that. And for all of that you just have to look how the development sector and the priorities have changed. :ugeek:


Not convinced? Here are some real world examples which are to find at the PaleMoon project, or for example on github entries of the Brave project

- "Rebase the browser with the latest Firefox code so it is able to work flawless with Netflix"

- "DRM is a must have feature"

-"Whatsapp is not working"

- "the new tab page function is nothing i can understand and too complex, do it like Chrome or i have to leave"

- "Square tabs are outdated"

- "Shrinking tabs are a must have, change it towards how Chrome works"


And so on and so on :ugeek: That is what most people today want or demand. No mention of advanced features anymore. It's either simple and great or feature rich and therefor slow, buggy, too complex to understand and unwanted and outdated.

No offense to simple users btw. Just some examples how that kind of users argue and think.

User avatar
lyceus
Forum staff
Forum staff
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby lyceus » Sat May 27, 2017 5:59 pm

I will cite my brother's words here:

In the 1980s the feat of computers was we can do it: Music? yes. Graphics? yes. Games? hell yes. Tax income? yes. Send a hello word to grandma in a Bulletin Board? yes. Computers were the novelty and reserved to geeks. In 90s it become the tool for work: Do you want a place in the office? You must do MSOffice and Photoshop. Then in mid 90s, became internet popularization: Add Email and "put my company in the web" aka made the corporate web page. Computer were the novelty for nerds AND companies. Enter the 2000s and the Internet craze: Phones that connect to internet with slim browsers to full browsers, web services, social media, photos, forums... and all companies, governments and people want to be there. Computers then lost their mystery line and become a home appliance for everybody and nerds and companies.

Common people see a computer or a phone like a home appliance now. They don't care what's inside, even how to customize it, even several people uses them with the packaging plastic labels! So rarely they will use another program inside than the build in ones as long it works.


This is a fragment of his class about Introduction to Computer Science at University.

The last point is what is relevant here: In the past Microsoft ruled with MSIE because they ruled the market of PCs. Now if you see the statics Android rules over Windows in user install base, and each one of those has a Chrome browser installed. So common users get the program in phones and tablets, and want it on their PCs just because it works. So why they will bother to install a browser that has troubles to see the services and pages that they like? What have these programs that are better than Chrome?

Chrome will win? No. Because we are talking of the common people that has little computer science training. TI and power users not always prefer one tool for work or not like it at all. Market shows us that always we have a two-side habitat: Pepsi-Coke, Windows-Mac (or WIndows-Linux), Adidas-Nike, Nestle-Unilever, etc. The battle here is to name the technology that will be inside the moniker "Chrome-______".

User avatar
Sajadi
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:46 am

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Sajadi » Sat May 27, 2017 8:31 pm

lyceus wrote:Common people see a computer or a phone like a home appliance now. They don't care what's inside, even how to customize it, even several people uses them with the packaging plastic labels! So rarely they will use another program inside than the build in ones as long it works.


In earlier times people wanted to explore what is inside a program, they wanted to gain more knowledge. But that age now in which we are living is all about going backwards and so are most users today.. They want it simple... They want it to work. How it functions or how it is made is not of importance to them. As long as it works and it puts the user not into an unwanted challenge - aka complexity, features, choice and options = bloat and useless!

A rather sad development actually.

And that results is almost everyone throwing away years of work because there is suddenly the fear of being seen as obsolete or bloated garbage-ware. Because Google and Chrome slowly make all the competition suffocating: "If you are not like us, you will be gone soon" But that the result of this drives even more people towards Google is not coming into the minds of such developers who act instead of think. And the dominance of Chrome makes it also rather unlikely that we see a new brilliant and ground breaking engine rising from the ashes of the development wasteland these days.

Even worse - the fact that there are still enough users around which ensure the survival for such "niche software" is totally being ignored. Fear is not a good source for advice. But everyone hungers today for more... more possession, more money, more influence... That does also not stop in front of developers.

And Opera and Mozilla are the worst betraying companies in the browser industry so far. Disrespect and dislike towards them from my part. :thumbdown:

PhilK
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:30 am

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby PhilK » Sun May 28, 2017 1:43 am

I think the bundling with the most popular OS of the time is a huge part of it.

Simple: Microsoft WIndows was the dominant operating system of the world 10 years ago.

Android is the dominant operating system of the world today.

Add to the incessant marketing of Chrome by the most dominant company on the web the last 10 years, and some performance advantages - the competition is toast.

User avatar
Sajadi
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:46 am

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Sajadi » Sun May 28, 2017 10:33 am

PhilK wrote:I think the bundling with the most popular OS of the time is a huge part of it.

Simple: Microsoft WIndows was the dominant operating system of the world 10 years ago.

Android is the dominant operating system of the world today.

Add to the incessant marketing of Chrome by the most dominant company on the web the last 10 years, and some performance advantages - the competition is toast.


Android and Windows are totally different. So bundling does not fully explain why Chrome is also utterly dominating on Windows systems. Because if we speak of bundling - theoretically IE/Edge should then be the most used browser on Windows.

The reality is more that Chrome has built a reputation for most simple users. And those users of course advertise Chrome towards other simple users. No matter if that kind of users are using Android or not.

Pale as the Moon
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:51 pm

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Pale as the Moon » Sun May 28, 2017 12:19 pm

Sajadi wrote:Vivaldi is a non acceptable Chrome clone.

At least Vivaldi is providing an option to customize the interface via CSS code, whereas Mozilla plans to remove this. The extensions will also be largely the same when Firefox 57 hits. So what is the issue here?
Sajadi wrote:Take a look to the users of today. The biggest part are simple users. Simple users refuse to use anything which has bloat. Basically, what people understand under customization and features have changed.

The biggest part of the userbase of each and every browser was always "simple users". According to a survey by Mozilla 40% of Firefox users are not even using an add-on. The users who only use an adblocker - and from this kind there are a lot - don't even count into that number. Firefox became successful because IE6/7/8 was goddamn awful, not because of the great extensions. Sure, there were power users who spread the word, but they hardly account for approx. 30% of all web users (which was the highest market share that Firefox held around 2009/10).
Sajadi wrote:Customization, like themes or UI customization is seen today as bloat, social networking, chat and else is seen today as features and customization. And as browser developer you can only be successful if you deliver to the mainstream users or in Mozilla's and Opera's case, both got greedy and removed therefor the power user features.

Again, the biggest part of the userbase of every browser there is were and are "simple users". Might not be true for Pale Moon, but you have to keep in mind that Pale Moon is fairly exotic. And seriously, I don't understand where you see the connection between a working Facebook/WhatsApp and interface customization. Those two are completely unrelated. Firefox (and to a lesser degree Opera) was a mainstream browser which was mostly used by simple users, period. IE provided a very bad overall user experience, hence why people left. Those people did not automatically become power users afterwards, you know... As for Opera: As mentioned before, the big changeover was necessary. No website admin cared for Presto with its 1%-2% market share. So they started to use Blink as their engine, which seems fair. The only thing you can blame them for is their failure to reinstate their former features, which is what Vivaldi is doing now.
Sajadi wrote:Bundling does help a bit, but Chrome is successful because it IS delivering all that what simple users want. And it's main advantage is that it is FAST! Simple users do not use Pale Moon or Firefox or Opera. They want no check-boxes, no features they neither understand or want. They want it simple and bare-bone and speedy like hell.

I agree with this. Speed and bundling it with other software (and heavy advertising of course) helped a lot. Android being the dominant mobile platform with Chrome as default browser helped as well.
Sajadi wrote:Mozilla and Opera could have had a good and long life with just delivering to power and advanced users, who want more than just plain and simple, stupid browsing. They just have decided to leave the niche sector and enter too the mainstream sector in the hope to be as successful as Chrome or beat them.

Again, Firefox (and Opera to some extent) was fairly mainstream to begin with and a great deal of the userbase were "simple users". Opera might have had more power users, maybe. But Firefox was always very very "mainstream". Moreover I disagree with you about a browser being able to live in a niche market forever. At least, if this browser uses a unique engine. You see, Pale Moon is using an engine very close to Gecko, and since Gecko still accounts for 15% of the overall web population it has to be taken into account when creating a website. Hence why you don't see a lot of breakage when using Pale Moon. Its engine is the only thing that allows Pale Moon to survive. Presto just accounted for 1%-2% of the overall web population and was therefore put to rest. Browsers like Vivaldi decided to use Blink in order to prevent a mostly broken web experience. You call that "Chrome clone", but what alternative did they really have? Once Gecko falls into oblivion you are going to see a lot of breakage when using Pale Moon as well, unless it has become very successful or has changed its engine until then. So the niche is only going to work when your engine is still mainstream.
Sajadi wrote:And here we have the problem which arises.. Why people should use Firefox or Opera with a new Chrome-styled concept when the real Chrome is available (or Chromium - if you want the Open Source factor)

I agree with this. Being exactly like the competitor won't work out. However, you fail to understand that Opera had no other choice and Mozilla is increasingly having no other choice than to follow Chrome's footsteps. Presto was nearly irrelevant and was thus dropped, period. Gecko is becoming irrelevant due to Chrome slowly taking over the web as well (again, via bundling/speed advantages/advertising).
Sajadi wrote:Also, Vivaldi and Brave will only stay in the niche sector and only will have a very limited and small user base - because simple users are not going to use anything which has something bloated.

I doubt that they were ever planning to overtake the mainstream market. Their use cases are fairly special.
Sajadi wrote:This is no magic. It is as simple as that. And for all of that you just have to look how the development sector and the priorities have changed. :ugeek:

The priorities haven't "changed" at all. Simple users always accounted for the majority of the userbase. IE was just awful(ly slow) and Firefox came in at the right time. Thus even the "simple users" had a reason to switch, end of story. However, Firefox is not really able to compete with Chrome speed-wise anymore, which is what they are trying to address with their switch to Servo and the concurrent dropping of classic add-ons. Speed is not my main priority, but for most users it is.
Sajadi wrote:- "Rebase the browser with the latest Firefox code so it is able to work flawless with Netflix"

Well, Netflix is only supporting a very limited range of major browsers anyway. However, there really is a good chance that rebasing Pale Moon on a newer Gecko engine will help those incompatibilities. The breakage is likely to be caused by a too old Gecko engine. Furthermore Netflix is an important website and is only going to grow, so concerns regarding Pale Moon's compatibility do not really come out of the blue. :D Honestly, I can't see how this is a concern of simple users only.
Sajadi wrote:- "DRM is a must have feature"

It is an official HTML5 standard and with the rise of streaming services usage of DRM is only going to increase on the website admins' part. Again, can't see why this should be a concern of simple users only.
Sajadi wrote:-"Whatsapp is not working"

Yeah, you know... WhatsApp is a major service today. Of course people expect it to work. Again, why do you attribute WhatsApp only to the needs of "simple users"? Everbody and their dog is using it today.
Sajadi wrote:- "the new tab page function is nothing i can understand and too complex, do it like Chrome or i have to leave"

This most likely was a "simple user", yes.
Sajadi wrote:- "Square tabs are outdated"

It's a matter of taste; that was most likely also a "simple user", yeah.
Sajadi wrote:- "Shrinking tabs are a must have, change it towards how Chrome works"

Also a "simple user" most likely, yep.
Sajadi wrote:And so on and so on :ugeek: That is what most people today want or demand.

Yeah, and? Apart from the last three points I can fully understand these demands.
Sajadi wrote:No mention of advanced features anymore. It's either simple and great or feature rich and therefor slow, buggy, too complex to understand and unwanted and outdated.

Sajadi, please understand that only a very small minority of the general user population of every browser there is has ever used "advanced features". Pale Moon is an exotic browser, we are not representative. Firefox was most likely never used in an "advanced way" by most either. So there never was a big "shift" ever. IE was awful, so Firefox took over. Firefox happened to provide some advanced features, yet most people never cared for, let alone used them. Then Chrome came around, delivering significant speed improvements, making the vast crowd of Firefox users switch. Where do you see a big "shift" or "change of pattern" here?
Sajadi wrote:Android and Windows are totally different. So bundling does not fully explain why Chrome is also utterly dominating on Windows systems.

Bundling was a big reason for Chrome's success. And being the dominant browser on Android definitely helped Chrome on the desktop. Denying this would be foolish at best.
Sajadi wrote:Because if we speak of bundling - theoretically IE/Edge should then be the most used browser on Windows.

IE has built up a certain reputation, you know. Those good old times during which nothing worked as it should... The IE name was burned to the ground by Microsoft. Edge was an improvement, but too little, too late. The difference between IE and Chrome users is that Chrome users are mostly satisfied.
Sajadi wrote:The reality is more that Chrome has built a reputation for most simple users. And those users of course advertise Chrome towards other simple users.

The userbase of all major browsers out there consists of "simple users", like it or not. That includes Firefox. Firefox was advertised in the same way Chrome is today and quickly gained ground because of IE being... IE. It's not like everyone was an expert back in the day - quite the contrary. People just waited for a badly needed replacement for IE and they got it, but did not care for advanced features mostly. You pretending that priorities have shifted is just wrong. Mozilla is killing off the add-ons, true, but this is because most of their users are what you would call "simple users" who care more for speed than for features. The change was necessary from Mozilla's perspective, at the very least for technical reasons.
Sajadi wrote:No matter if that kind of users are using Android or not.

Yeah, what else would they use? iOS users mostly use Safari. And again, being the default browser on Android helped Chrome a lot, and be it only for brand recognition.

User avatar
Sajadi
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:46 am

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Postby Sajadi » Sun May 28, 2017 1:36 pm

Pale as the Moon wrote:At least Vivaldi is providing an option to customize the interface via CSS code, whereas Mozilla plans to remove this. The extensions will also be largely the same when Firefox 57 hits. So what is the issue here?


It's Chrome - and using a Chromium based browser increases Google's power and influence. So it would be logically to stop using a browser based on Chromium.

And second... DRM - Netflix - rebasing topics:

Rebasing towards webextensions and XUL-less versions would mean you lose 99% of the customization features what Pale Moon does have. So all simple users who demand that are fully aware of this fact and yet they support this, even if all advanced features for more demanding users would go extinct as result of that. So, as developer you have now to think about what is supporting you more. Either still delivering a feature set for power users or go rebuild only and sacrifice the advanced users for simple users demand which would of course result in a possible increase of market share - at least theoretically. It depends if the developer looks at user numbers only or is more interested that also advanced users have their way of browser usage - which of course limits the possible market share one can reach with the product.

And last but not least... Opera and Firefox never have been mainstream. A mainstream browser never includes features which give the user almost fully control over everything - and instead a mainstream browser would stay with a limited feature set and would not offering tons of choices.

But: Simple users can of course too use whatever they want. Firefox and Opera had one benefit: It served both user groups, simple users had the option to make both browsers minimalist while more advanced users have been able to max out the browser's capabilities to their liking. And Mozilla and Opera have decided that supporting simple users is more important and favorable as still serving 2 user groups the same time.


Return to “General discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests